Gerald Stanley trial in the death of Colten Boushie

Smith, i'm not comparing this incident to a sexual assault, i'm comparing people's reaction: i.e. in an assault, we all seem to understand that sometimes victims react in ways that don't make sense to us in hindsight.

much like people's pontifications here about what stanley was feeling, how scared he was, if he needed to grab a gun or not. i'm saying it's easy for us to say it was "over the top" to get a gun in hindsight (which would make a conviction for manslaughter more likely) and reminds me of how people question a sex assault victims state of mind "Why didn't she just leave" that kind of thing, i.e. "why didn't they just go inside and call for help". maybe you don't take that view on sex assaut survivors smith, but if you do i'd say you have a contradiction with your core values in this case. also, no evidence he shot at anyone running away...

Then there's kropotkin: why do you think this guy is such a racist? you've said it a few times now, so far i haven't seen anything to indicate that...also, how could he have made up a story with information he didn't have--must be some coincidence with that casing evidence, or are you suggesting some kind of grand conspiracy involving the crown feeding the defense info in advance of the trial?

contrasted with the tina fontaine trial, where you have multiple motives, the blanket evidence, wiretaps--that is a case where you can argue someone got away with murder.

contrasted with the tina fontaine trial, where you have multiple motives, the blanket evidence, wiretaps--that is a case where you can argue someone got away with murder.

Actually, "word on the street" is that the Crown's case was weak, but they probably rushed it.

Honestly, I wish we had a "Law and Justice" forum. I totally get that in this forum, dissecting evidence and testimony and legislation probably isn't all that welcome. But high profile trials have (IMHO) two components. The social component (who was the victim? Who was the alleged criminal? What social factors may have contributed to the crime, the verdict, and/or the reaction to both?) and the legal component (what was the evidence, and how was it procured and presented? Were testimonies plausible or were there contradictions?).

For some reason we seem to want discussions of crimes and trials like these to vigorously mix together emotional reactions, political reactions, visceral reactions and logical reactions. Then, we get long and acrimonious threads not unlike the allegorical blind men fighting over what an elephant obviously is.

The "Crime in Rural Areas" thread was opened in the Manitoba and Saskatchewan forum. There's also a national news forum. Either of those would do fine. In fact, this case is already being hashed out over there too.

Milo, we just had another case here in Saskatoon. Cabbie physically assaults a woman in his cab; she stabs him. They both get charged. So again, it isn't a defense for assault, never mind murder. In fact, it wasn't raised as a defense in the case. In court, anyway.

Of course my raising an eyebrow at the notion that this is anything like a military invasion, or a sexual assault (or indeed, your implication that my questioning your comparison is insulting to assault victims) is just because of the sheer absurdity and irony.

No one physically attacked anyone until after one of their friends was shot dead. And even after that one person threw a punch, then stopped.

No difficulty holding this killer to full account, even though he was a minor, has FASD and numerous other psychiatric problems, and even though the mother of two of the boys he killed said she did not want him sentenced as an adult. The court erupted in applause when the judge made her decision.

If I had any faith in the corrections system to actually do anything to help him rather than just turn him into an even harder criminal I might see some sense or purpose in this. As it is all I see is a determination that his life is going to be ruined.

That, and yet another example of double standards. No one in the course of this case said anything about what a nice boy he was, or what a promising future he had.

The "Crime in Rural Areas" thread was opened in the Manitoba and Saskatchewan forum. There's also a national news forum. Either of those would do fine. In fact, this case is already being hashed out over there too.

And that's super. But it was explicitly opened to discuss ways of preventing or addressing rural crimes, not to rehash the Stanley trial. But we know how that goes.

I just wish there were somewhere on babble where one could say "well, the Crown didn't really have much of a case, so acquittal shouldn't be surprising" without having to hear how that's just racism talking. Which forum would that be?

I have been clear that my only objection is that this really is an inappropriate place for it, given that the purpose is to discuss from an Indigenous perspective.

If someone wants to open a thread about the legal particulars of the case somewhere else feel free. It might not stop anyone from calling out racist comments and opinions (and outright falsehoods), but at least there will be less call to say it is in the wrong forum.

But really, no one seems to be stopping anyway, so I am not sure what your concern is. Do you think people shouldn't be able to respond?

I was very surprised Cormier got off then I read all the trial evidence and was surprised this came to trial at all. Losts of DNA evidence, none of it his, no physical evidence, no evidence of a murder in fact at all, according to the autopsy (to be fair, no evidence it wasnt either). Just garbled recorded evidence which doesnt really fit the scenarios atall that the Crown was pushing. They went too fast to get a conviction to show there wasnt racism in the system. They failed

If someone wants to open a thread about the legal particulars of the case somewhere else feel free.

That's kind of what I'm saying I wish we had. A "Law and Justice" forum where comments were expected to be "pro-facts" or "pro-evidence". That's what I'm wishing for; a forum where the case like this could be discussed on its legal merits, whether or not that set reconciliation back 100 years or whatever.

I'm just saying that while the social factors of a trial deserve vigorous discussion, so do the legal factors. I'm sure you'd rather discuss this without hearing about hangfires. Where at babble should we go to discuss the legal stuff without hearing how he had his whole life ahead of him and didn't deserve to be murdered for lulz by a racist? The "Manitoba and Saskatchewan" forum, you figure?

I'm not asking for a special place to be racist, BTW. I'd just like, sometimes, to be able to discuss what the Crown said or what the defense did without it being viewed through some lens of oppression.

No difficulty holding this killer to full account, even though he was a minor, has FASD and numerous other psychiatric problems, and even though the mother of two of the boys he killed said she did not want him sentenced as an adult. The court erupted in applause when the judge made her decision.

If I had any faith in the corrections system to actually do anything to help him rather than just turn him into an even harder criminal I might see some sense or purpose in this. As it is all I see is a determination that his life is going to be ruined.

That, and yet another example of double standards. No one in the course of this case said anything about what a nice boy he was, or what a promising future he had.

They weren't the only two people killed. It doesn't sound like he was a nice kid with a promising future. He may have had physchiatric issues but doesn't anyone who goes on shooting rampage have problems in that regard? I don't see how it could be otherwise.

That IS asking for a place to be able to say things without others being able to comment on how they might be racist or discriminatory, or point out oppression. You can dress it up how you want, but it is that special racist safe space.

And again, I don't see what your concern is, except that people are responding to you. We ARE talking about facts of the case and legal and social aspects of this, and like it or not they are tied in with racial and cultural realities.

Though if I may be allowed a comment on oppression, it is kind of cute how us white people think we can turn it on and off when it inconveniences us. Those who live it day to day know that is not how it works.

If there's something you feel you aren't able to discuss I'm not sure what it is; despite being asked to consider which forum we are in the comments haven't changed one bit.

If I have to put up with reading some of this stuff, well those who wrote it can put up with reading what I and others think about it.

The point is, Pondering, that he very clearly sick, and needs treatment. I seriously doubt he is going to get that in prison, even psychiatric prison (if you have been following the systematic deep cuts that have been made in recent years).

But again, it is funny how our perspective is different when it is a white landowner defending his property and scared and unable to think, and when it is a youth with FASD and psychiatric disorders who knew exactly what he was doing.

That IS asking for a place to be able to say things without others being able to comment on how they might be racist or discriminatory, or point out oppression. You can dress it up how you want, but it is that special racist safe space.

Oh, I've no doubt there would still be comments and criticisms, and I wouldn't suggest that they should be forbidden. But it would be nice to have a forum to discuss crimes qua crimes. Noting the importance of a lack of any physical evidence =/= "racism". Can we say that? That it's pretty damn hard to convict on circumstantial evidence alone? Or is that just not taking into account hundreds of years of systematic oppression?

I'll just be really blunt: I don't think discussions of crimes, trials or verdicts should come down to "whose side are you on?"

Considering that following the verdict of the Cormier trial most of the discussion has been about the failings of CFS, and the police, I don't think that lack of evidence as racism (beyond police screwups) has been a serious argument. Everyone knows it was a difficult case.

Same thing for justice by team trope. Yes I think the Stanley trial was an example of systemic racism on several levels. There are concrete reasons for that, which have already been pointed out here.

So again, I am not sure what this pining for a special place is all about. We ARE talking about crimes as crimes, if I understand your meaning. Both those crimes and how they are dealt with by the legal system are influenced by racism in our society. It is going to get talked about in that context.

Now if you feel someone here has said something untrue or unreasonable maybe you should point out what you are talking about so it can be clarified; sounds a bit more concrete than wishing for some space where all of us will somehow discuss things differently than we are here and now.

In short, if you are implying that people are being unreasonable here, what specifically do you mean?

In short, if you are implying that people are being unreasonable here, what specifically do you mean?

I'm definitely not accusing any poster of being unreasonable.

And I get that when crimes happen to Indigenous persons, or women, or POC then it's understandable to discuss the social component of the crimes, the victims, the alleged or convicted criminals, and society.

But I think there's also merit in discussing those aspects of the above that are not specifically "social" -- and it's a bit awkward doing so in forums where there's an explicit expectation that posts must be pro-Aboriginal, pro-feminist or anti-racist. And to be clear, I'm not arguing that those forums shouldn't have those mandates, nor that posts in those forums shouldn't be expected to follow them.

I just think that a discussion of fingerprints, DNA evidence, witness testimony and similar can be neither "pro" nor "anti" anything. I'm not "pining" for a special place for that. I just suggested it could be nice if there were a place where we could discuss those things that are simply neither (for example) "feminist" nor "anti-feminist" without offending the mandate of a forum. I haven't asked Meg for it and I'm not planning to. But it does seem sometimes that a dry analysis of contentious cases is unwelcome in the forums where posters choose to begin the discussion. I hope it's not anti-feminist or racist to suggest this.

If you have a problem maybe you should talk about it rather than just talking about wanting to talk about it.

Because although you are making vague allusions to something being in the way, no one is stopping you from saying anything, and I have never known you to be a wallflower when it comes to speaking your mind. Is there some DNA or fingerprint evidence or witness testimony in particular you want to talk about?

Maybe we should cut to the chase here. Am I surprised the jury did not convict in that case? No. The fact they had no cause of death, no witnesses, and the nature of the confession meant that it was going to be a difficult case.

My question is why didn't the police do a better investigation? The whole thing seemed sloppy.

it's just like in Regina a few years ago there was a native woman who fell 10 floors down a laundry chute in a hotel and the police deemed it a suicide without a proper investigation. There were two males seen on video camera going up to the 10th floor with her and the police never questioned these two men. I haven't looked at the facts of the case and it could've been a suicide but who are the police to make such a determination without a proper investigation?

The point is, Pondering, that he very clearly sick, and needs treatment. I seriously doubt he is going to get that in prison, even psychiatric prison (if you have been following the systematic deep cuts that have been made in recent years).

But again, it is funny how our perspective is different when it is a white landowner defending his property and scared and unable to think, and when it is a youth with FASD and psychiatric disorders who knew exactly what he was doing.

Yes of course. The property owner is not the aggressor. They didn't plan to have someone drive onto their property and behave threateningly. They didn't look up how it feels to kill someone. For a psychiatric defence to work requires a diagnoses that suggests the person was unable to comprehend their actions. I don't know of any white school shooters who have gotten off on a psychiatric defence. Do you?

People are still outraged that blond Karla Homolka walked out of prison because of police stupidity. Her whiteness hasn't make people more sympathetic to her.

The doctor that got off for killing his own children was retried. The public was furious a pyschicatric defence was used.

You don't believe white people would have been treated the same but white hooligans do exist and they would be treated the same way by that type of person. The way they behaved was not normal. It isn't the way anyone who wanted help would behave. They were driving on a rim. That's not normal. They tried the ATV and tried the door of a vehicle. In broad daylight. It does not take a genius to figure out they were there to boost a vehicle. That isn't normal behavior. Usually people wait until dark or at least ring the bell to make sure no one is there. Who steals in broad daylight with people present and outdoors?

The family sat in a circle and listened to each speaker. Ms. Tootoosis told the family she was particularly troubled to hear from one of the witnesses, Ms. Wuttnuee, that the confrontation was fueled by anger over trespassing.

"We share the land. To say they killed him for trespassing means they violated the Treaty. Nobody owns the land," she said

So did she teach her son that white farmers don't own their land?

Later that day Ms. Baptiste hesitates before inviting a reporter into her home. She describes the field of raw sewage beneath the trailer, as their system hasn't been hooked up for about two years.

"Our water's shut off. Our sewer's not hooked up…There are three broken windows that have not been fixed for two years," she says.

In the harsh Saskatchewan winter they all sleep in the living room with the oven door open and blankets stuffed in the broken windows to block the wind.

Anyone living under those conditions are treated the same way by police. If someone with a gun dies, even a broken gun, police arrive in large numbers and proceed as though someone could be waiting in a closet ready to shoot them. Classism exists.

I can't be as sure they would approach a house in Westmont the same way but under the same circustances, gun death, person who died had a broken gun, they might even act the same way there. It's possible they wouldn't have but class or not they may still have ripped the house apart. They would probably ask around first to see who lived there, if there might be a drug lab in the basement or if it was the sort of family that usually lives in such a place.

100% of white people are not priviledged in their personal lives. Every single thing individual thing that happens to a visible minority is not based on their skin color. Isn't that what intersectionality is about? A rick black person isn't treated the same as a poor black person? A rich white person may be more privileged than a rich black person but not by much. A rich black person is way more priviledged than a poor white person.

Colton's family and friends tried to portray the 5 as innocently stopping at the farm for help with a flat tire. They were not. The only reason the gun they had was inoperable was because they broke on the previous farm they tried to rob.

Over the decades Canada will become majority visible minority and many of those minorities will be extremely successful. They do better in school than born Canadians. They will be at the highest levels of business and government. Someday just as many white people will be under-priviledged. Even today there are lots of underprivileged white people. They don't seem to do any better than people of other colors who are also underprivileged.

If there's no reason why the jury didn't convict, and no reason other than the lack of evidence for why they didn't, would you say justice was done, then?

I wouldn't call it justice, no. Her killing is unsolved. She was failed by the police, and she was failed by CFS. And it was a flimsy case that was rushed to trial without a preliminary hearing. And there are some who say the defendent should have faced other charges. So regardless of what choice the jury had, I don't call it justice.

And Pondering, Gerald Stanley walked up behind someone who did nothing to him, put a gun to the back of his head and shot him. How can you say he was not the aggressor in that killing?

If there's no reason why the jury didn't convict, and no reason other than the lack of evidence for why they didn't, would you say justice was done, then?

I wouldn't call it justice, no. Her killing is unsolved. She was failed by the police, and she was failed by CFS. And it was a flimsy case that was rushed to trial without a preliminary hearing. And there are some who say the defendent should have faced other charges. So regardless of what choice the jury had, I don't call it justice.

And Pondering, Gerald Stanley walked up behind someone who did nothing to him, put a gun to the back of his head and shot him. How can you say he was not the aggressor in that killing?

I've already stated I agree with manslaughter from what I know. I've read differing accounts. I can't get into the heads of the Stanleys or the 5. The 5 were aggressors because they came onto the property to steal and even though Colton's gun was inoperable it wasn't at the previous farm. It does show willingness to do violence. He was no choir boy. Even so I think he was getting in the front seat to drive away not attack anyone. I don't believe anyone thought Leesa Stanley was under the truck. I think the hammer to the windshield was intended to stop the vehicle from leaving.

I don't believe that he deliberately shot Colton. I think it was an accident but that the Stanleys shouldn't have tried to detain the group therefore manslaughter is in order.

I don't believe Colton or anyone else in the group ever considered running anyone over. I don't believe there was any reason to believe that he was trying to do that. If you think a vehicle is coming for you hitting it with a hammer does not make sense. You jump away. Kicking a taillight because you think the vehicle is aiming for your son makes no sense either. At the same time as all this was going on Leesa Stanley must have been approaching the vehicle to be close enough to get punched. I don't think the Stanley's story is impossible and I wasn't at the trial listening to the testimony so this is just perception from what I have heard so far.

From the perspective of prevention I think it's important to understand all the parameters that lead to a death like this one. If this is a case of manslaughter then a conviction would contribute to prevention. It's scary to think someone could shoot you if they think you are stealing from them. People also need to understand that this kind of stealing is dangerous. Farmers have guns. It's not a game.

I understand castle doctrine but as I understand it, at least in Canada, you are only permitted to use as much force as necessary to save your own life and if you can escape that is what you are expected to do. So if you shoot someone's gunhand rendering them helpless you can't walk up and shoot them in the head.

Wasn't there some sort of citizens arrest law passed? That was a bad idea.

I can't get into the heads of the Stanleys or the 5. The 5 were aggressors because they came onto the property to steal and even though Colton's gun was inoperable it wasn't at the previous farm. It does show willingness to do violence.

You give Stanley the benefit of the doubt, and say you can't get in his head. Yet you are fine jumping in the heads of other people and assuming they were "(willing) to do violence" though no one picked up that gun. And you also discount the disability and psychiatric problems of the LaLoche shooter and pass judgment on him too.

Why haven't firearms charges been issued against both parties in this situation? It seems to me that this warranted because of the careless use and storage of the rifle and pistol. There are likely charges for failing to properly licensing the pistol too.

Why haven't firearms charges been issued against both parties in this situation? It seems to me that this warranted because of the careless use and storage of the rifle and pistol. There are likely charges for failing to properly licensing the pistol too.

Seems to me there are plenty of other charges that could be laid.

Stanley is facing a different trial on charges related to careless storage.

Why haven't firearms charges been issued against both parties in this situation? It seems to me that this warranted because of the careless use and storage of the rifle and pistol. There are likely charges for failing to properly licensing the pistol too.

Seems to me there are plenty of other charges that could be laid.

Good question.

Unauthorized possession of firearm. Unauthorized possession of ammunition. Careless use of a firearm (transporting a loaded firearm). Probably a handful more charges for both parties. The Prime Minister and Minister of Justice stupidly gave Mr Stanley a get out of jail free card with their biased comments about the case.

And until when and if there is an appeal, and someone makes that argument I wouldn't assume the PM botched anything. At no point did he or the justice minister say the court or the jury did anything wrong, and the criticism of peremptory jury selection is completely valid.

There is enough recognition of systemic racism against Indigenous people in the justice system that their reaction to this is entirely fair.

Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould gave him a get out of jail card for any future firearm related charges. A lawyer will be able to take the formers comments about the case and argue all sorts of bias and paint a picture that Stanly, if found guilty, was done so due to the biased comments from none other than a prime minister and minister of justice. They're essentially suggesting he should have been found guilty. Because of their unhappiness at the result of the trial, firearm charges are a means to make amends for it (whether he's actually guilty or not).

Nice try, but when did they say that, or that the jury made the wrong decision? Or for that matter that the judge or the crown or defense failed in their work?

The way to an appeal is pretty narrow, and this is a very different and more technical charge. You may be right that a jury will just ignore evidence and nullify the case, but the notion that this is a case of "thanks Trudeau" because he dared to weigh in on systemic racism is a bit far fetched. And kind of ironic.

There are plenty who would love for us to just keep silent on it, and play by some supposed book.

I can't get into the heads of the Stanleys or the 5. The 5 were aggressors because they came onto the property to steal and even though Colton's gun was inoperable it wasn't at the previous farm. It does show willingness to do violence.

You give Stanley the benefit of the doubt, and say you can't get in his head. Yet you are fine jumping in the heads of other people and assuming they were "(willing) to do violence" though no one picked up that gun. And you also discount the disability and psychiatric problems of the LaLoche shooter and pass judgment on him too.

That's the double standard I am pointing out.

No double standard. Anyone, black, white or green, who travels around with a gun, I will assume is willing to do violence. That is the sole purpose of a gun. I see no plausible reason for bringing a gun along to go swimming. I see no logic behind the claim that in his fifties Gerald Stanley decided to murder someone for arriving at his home in a vehicle at 5 in the afternoon even if he were racist.

I don't discount the psychiatric problems of the school shooter. I am saying at this point in time, black, white or green, the bar for getting off based on psychiatric problems is extremely high. You have to literally be out of touch with reality.

Like the woman who didn't want him tried as as adult, I too would not want him tried as an adult but some of the other victims did and victims have rights too.

Bad, terrible things happen to people because they are visible minorities. Bad, terrible things happen to people because they are women. That doesn't mean that everything bad that happens to visible minorities and women is due to racism and sexism. Bad things still happen to white men.

You think what, if they had been white Gerald Stanley wouldn't have realized they were planning to steal vehicles or would have realized it but not tried to stop them?

You try to portray them as "kids" but they were not kids. They were all adults. One was 24. They were drunk. They had tried to rob the farm they went to before getting to the Stanleys. Yet you expect me to believe they stopped for help. Why didn't they ring the doorbell? I haven't heard any mention of cell phones. Didn't any of them have one?

Smith I believe it was said the loaded 22 caliber rifle belonged to Cross-Whitsone. Do you think he should be charged with the firearm offenses I mentioned above? Specifically unauthorized possession and careless use.

Pondering wrote:

You try to portray them as "kids" but they were not kids. They were all adults. One was 24. They were drunk. They had tried to rob the farm they went to before getting to the Stanleys. Yet you expect me to believe they stopped for help. Why didn't they ring the doorbell? I haven't heard any mention of cell phones. Didn't any of them have one?

It seems like there is a view in SM that anyone who suggests wrong doing by the occupants of the car are just racist but I'm going to venture a guess that atleast some of the anger in this case against the occupants stems from them being painted as just some well behaved kids out for a innocent drive after some swimming. They we're out drinking and driving, armed with a loaded gun and robbing people. If Stanley is charged with firearm related offenses so too should the occupants of the vehicle, or at least whomever "owned" the gun.

Who is suggesting that pointing out the fact one of them tried to steal that ATV is racist? I made reference to it myself.

Gotta love the running narrative in this thread that because we dare point out that this incident is coloured by racism that it is somehow being used gratuitously, and to shut down discussion.

We don't know that he wasn't charged, but cops do have some discretion, and there is no indication Stanley's son was charged for breaking the car windshield, or that there was a charge for that punch that was thrown.

It seems like there is a view in SM that anyone who suggests wrong doing by the occupants of the car are just racist but I'm going to venture a guess that atleast some of the anger in this case against the occupants stems from them being painted as just some well behaved kids out for a innocent drive after some swimming. They we're out drinking and driving, armed with a loaded gun and robbing people. If Stanley is charged with firearm related offenses so too should the occupants of the vehicle, or at least whomever "owned" the gun.

The issue here is who do you believe? A simple examination of the facts known indicates that none of the parties involved are telling the truth. Does it bother me if you ponit out the inconsistencies of the statements of Boushie's friends? On the surface, no. However Stanley is also lying about the gun going off by accident. It's quite telling that people are choosing to believe Stanley's version of events and buy into his nonsense that he was just a poor farmer going about his business (which note he didn't even claim self defense) and yet automatically think the worst of Boushie and his friends. Have you ever spent any time on the Prairies? I live here.There are very racist attitudes towards Native people here. It's on the same level of racism directed towards black people in the Southern US. Many people were cheering the verdict not only because they believed Stanley but because they want to keep Natives in their place.

The point is, Pondering, that he very clearly sick, and needs treatment. I seriously doubt he is going to get that in prison, even psychiatric prison (if you have been following the systematic deep cuts that have been made in recent years).

But again, it is funny how our perspective is different when it is a white landowner defending his property and scared and unable to think, and when it is a youth with FASD and psychiatric disorders who knew exactly what he was doing.

Yes of course. The property owner is not the aggressor. They didn't plan to have someone drive onto their property and behave threateningly. They didn't look up how it feels to kill someone. For a psychiatric defence to work requires a diagnoses that suggests the person was unable to comprehend their actions. I don't know of any white school shooters who have gotten off on a psychiatric defence. Do you?

People are still outraged that blond Karla Homolka walked out of prison because of police stupidity. Her whiteness hasn't make people more sympathetic to her.

The doctor that got off for killing his own children was retried. The public was furious a pyschicatric defence was used.

In all of those cases, (and I specifically remember the Homolka case) public outrage was uniform towards the system. Not so in Boushie's case. Some people here were cheering that verdict. And regardless of your intentions, the impact of what you are saying is to play into the very racist attitudes towards Native people that exist in the Prairies. It's these overall attitudes that explain why the police don't take very seriously reports of missing First Nations women, and why a court can believe 3 grown men who say that a 12-year-old girl actually was coming onto them and therefore, these men were not guilty of raping her.

Pondering, I know from your history that you are passionate about protecting women and girls from sexual misconduct. Do you know what your posts remind me of? How when a woman accuses a man of assaulting her, the scrutiny that she comes under, why didn't she leave, why did she get drunk, well she got into his apartment, etc. I'm troubled by the blindness on display regarding your approach of scrutinizing Boushie's friends while believing that, the gun accidentally went off even though several firearms experts said no, it didn't.

Who is suggesting that pointing out the fact one of them tried to steal that ATV is racist? I made reference to it myself.

Gotta love the running narrative in this thread that because we dare point out that this incident is coloured by racism that it is somehow being used gratuitously, and to shut down discussion.

Those suggestions stem from facebook Twitter and news discussions and commentary rather that Rabble specifically. Sorry if I came off as suggesting you specifically indicated that.

Quote:

We don't know that he wasn't charged, but cops do have some discretion, and there is no indication Stanley's son was charged for breaking the car windshield, or that there was a charge for that punch that was thrown.

I believe we would have known if anyone else was charged in the incident.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The issue here is who do you believe? A simple examination of the facts known indicates that none of the parties involved are telling the truth. Does it bother me if you ponit out the inconsistencies of the statements of Boushie's friends? On the surface, no. However Stanley is also lying about the gun going off by accident. It's quite telling that people are choosing to believe Stanley's version of events and buy into his nonsense that he was just a poor farmer going about his business (which note he didn't even claim self defense) and yet automatically think the worst of Boushie and his friends. Have you ever spent any time on the Prairies? I live here.There are very racist attitudes towards Native people here. It's on the same level of racism directed towards black people in the Southern US. Many people were cheering the verdict not only because they believed Stanley but because they want to keep Natives in their place.

I don't believe either. I think the hangfire excuse is bullshit. I think the gun went off by accident, as I've seen guns go off numerous times for various reasons by accident, but not a hangfire. I think the hangfire route was clever lawyer work, working the system. I would have expected him to get some kind of manslaughter charge. Both Stanley and Cross should be charged with firearm related offenses, not just stanley.

I've passed through Sask (while wearing the drapings of colonial imperialisim) and have been treated 100 times better by indigenous people there than I have by white people in Toronto Ottawa and Montreal.

I believe there's very racist attitudes towards FN people out that way.

Everything I've read about the Tokarev T33 indicates it is actually known for being prone to missfires. If it was empty the slide "should" be held to the rear but I've seen that not happen when the magazine catch or magazines are damaged.

A 13 pound trigger pull IS heavy. The police generally have heavy trigger pulls like that (10-15lbs) to avoid accidentally discharging their firearm but it still happens. Especially so when someone is scared or ramped up from adrenaline. You should see what indoor police shooting ranges look like, bullet holes all over the place in the floor and ceiling and walls.

A lot of people squeeze triggers on guns without realizing what their doing. I know it sounds strange but it happens. I've been present when someone with a decent amount of training spent an hour cleaning a gun then put it back together, put a magazine on, cocked it in order to carry out a "function test" (see if it works after taking it apart) and shoot inside a tent. Normally you would test fire the gun after taking it apart which is what the guy did (muscle memory) but he added the extra step of putting a magazine on (also muscle memory) which happened to have bullets in it. I'm not defending Gerald Stanely, just saying that in a high stress situation assigning logic and what makes sense (after the fact) doesn't always jive.

You never mentioned if you thought any of the occupants of the vehicle should be charged under the Canadian firearms act.

I acknowledged that the cops have leeway, as they do with the use of that hammer. Unlike the hammer though, no one in this case used the rifle as a weapon, and by the time it was found it was broken.

One of the firearms experts in the trial - the same one who said he could not get the pistol to misfire even after dropping and shocking it repeatedly - said the rifle was so badly broken that he had to use a hammer to get it to fire.